get-rate-limit-status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must bear full burden. It indicates a read-like operation ('Get'), which is safe and non-destructive. However, it does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or what exactly 'stats' entails (e.g., limits, remaining calls). The description is adequate but lacks deeper behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Get current rate limiter stats') and adds clarifying subtypes. Every word is necessary; there is no wasted text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to specify what the returned stats contain (e.g., limits, remaining, reset times) or the format. An agent cannot fully understand what to expect from the response, making it incomplete for a stat-retrieval endpoint.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information. The baseline score is 4, and the description satisfies this by not being misleading.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving 'current rate limiter stats' with specific types (standard/strict/upload). The verb 'Get' and resource 'rate limiter stats' are explicit, and the tool is distinctly different from sibling tools which focus on prompts and templates.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the tool's function is unique among siblings (which are about prompts and server stats), so usage context is implicitly clear. An agent would infer to use it for checking rate limits, but no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.